2008 (10) TMI 499

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....capital goods in the year 1997. The credit taken was Rs. 3,18,500/-. The rate of duty at the time was 13%. After nearly 6½ years of use, the Respondents removed the capital goods to the sister unit. While removing the said goods, the rate of duty prevailing was 16%. Thus excess duty amounting to Rs. 73,500/- along with interest was paid by the appellants. It should be borne in mind that the payment of duty was through debit in the Cenvat credit account of the Respondents. Proceedings were initiated against the appellants for excess payment of duty. The Original authority imposed equal penalty under the relevant rules read with Section 11AC of the Act invoking proviso to Section 11AC of the Act. 3. Aggrieved over the order of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by them. In the said decision, the Tribunal upheld the recovery of excess credit along with interest. However penalty was reduced to Rs. 10,000/-. 5. On the other hand, the learned Advocate stated that in paying the higher amount through their Cenvat credit account, the Respondents did not have any evil intention. The rate of duty was 13% when the Respondent initially took the Cenvat credit. However, it so happened that at the time of clearance, the rate of duty was 16%. The Respondents paid 16% on the same value, that is why the excess duty had to be paid on the same was debited from their Cenvat credit account. In these circumstances, it was urged that there was no intention by the Respondents to defraud the Revenue to the extent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2006 (197) E.L.T. 555 (Tri. - Mum)] 7. On a very careful consideration of the matter, I find that the show cause notice has not specifically alleged the suppression of facts with an intention to evade payment of duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) has given a clear finding to the effect that the longer period cannot be invoked in the present case. I do not find any strong reason to disagree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). As regards the payment of excess duty, the first point which I would like to consider that in terms of the decided case laws for the relevant period, there was no obligation on the part of any manufacture to either pay duty or reverse the Cenvat credit on clearance of used capital goods. This has been....